The Trump-Putin talks could destabilize Iran’s strategic position by threatening its alliances, economy, and nuclear ambitions.

The bilateral talks between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Ukraine have sent shockwaves through global diplomacy. While much of the Western focus has been on the implications for U.S.-Russian relations, the biggest wildcard in this equation is Iran. If Moscow and Washington find even a sliver of common ground, Tehran may find itself in an increasingly precarious position—diplomatically, economically, and strategically.

Iran has relied on Russia as a counterweight to Western pressure for years. Moscow’s veto power at the UN, its military cooperation with Tehran, and its involvement in Iran’s nuclear program have made it an indispensable ally. But if Putin recalibrates his global strategy and shifts priorities—perhaps using Iran as a bargaining chip—Tehran could be further isolated.

Such a shift wouldn’t be unprecedented. Historically, Moscow has played both sides, balancing its interests between Iran and the West. If Trump and Putin strike a deal that sidelines Iran, Tehran could face a diplomatic crisis, scrambling to maintain its relevance in global negotiations. Meanwhile, European powers, long involved in JCPOA negotiations, might reassess their stance, either aligning more closely with Washington or exploring new ways to engage with Iran.

This comes at a critical moment. Iran and Russia signed a comprehensive strategic treaty in January, signaling their intent to deepen military and economic ties. However, history has shown that pragmatism rather than unwavering loyalty often dictates Russia’s alliances. If Trump offers Moscow economic incentives or relief from Western sanctions, Putin may decide that maintaining close ties with Iran is no longer a top priority.

Iran’s leadership has long been wary of such shifts. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has often warned against overreliance on foreign powers, and a cooling of relations with Moscow could validate that skepticism. Tehran remembers past betrayals, like Russia’s 2010 decision to cancel the S-300 missile deal under Western pressure—a reminder that Moscow ultimately prioritizes its own interests.

Under Trump’s first term, Washington pursued a “maximum pressure” campaign aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Tehran could face renewed constraints if a Trump 2.0 administration secures a new understanding with Russia.

Russia has been instrumental in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, particularly in expanding the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. Should Moscow curtail its involvement or align with Washington on stricter nuclear regulations, Iran’s ambitions could be significantly hampered. This would be a major win for Trump, who has long championed a hardline stance on Iran’s nuclear development.

Yet, should Iran feel betrayed by Russia, it may escalate its nuclear development in defiance—heightening regional tensions and potentially provoking preemptive responses from Israel or the U.S. Alternatively, Tehran could double down on its regional alliances, increasing its military presence in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen to offset any strategic losses. But such a move carries risks, as heightened military engagement could escalate conflicts and provoke direct retaliation from U.S. or Israeli forces.

At the same time, China’s role looms large. Beijing has already expanded its economic and security ties with Tehran, and Iran may look to China as an alternative counterweight to U.S. influence. However, China may be reluctant to offer the same strategic support as Russia, preferring economic engagement over military entanglements.

Iran’s fragile economy could face additional strain if Trump and Putin reach an understanding of energy policy. Should Russia adjust its oil strategy in a way that undercuts Iranian crude exports, Tehran’s financial lifeline could weaken even further. The Trump 2.0 administration would likely double down on economic pressure, aiming to drive Iran’s oil exports to near zero once again. Iran’s best hope might be to strengthen economic ties with China and India, but even that would not fully compensate for lost revenue. Beyond that, Tehran may try to diversify its economy through alternative energy markets or increased self-sufficiency efforts to mitigate external dependencies.

Iran faces a critical choice: does it gamble on continued reliance on Russia, hoping the Trump-Putin talks don’t lead to a significant shift? Or does it proactively seek alternative alliances to safeguard its interests?

One possible path is accelerating diplomatic outreach to China, the Gulf states, and Turkey to secure alternative partnerships. Another is adopting a more aggressive regional stance, asserting dominance in the Middle East regardless of external pressures. Domestic Iranian politics will also play a key role—will hardliners push for greater confrontation, or will moderates advocate recalibrating Iran’s foreign policy to adapt to shifting global dynamics?

One thing is sure: if a thaw in U.S.-Russia relations materializes, Iran could face a geopolitical nightmare. Already walking a tightrope between economic survival and strategic autonomy, Tehran may soon find itself with fewer options than ever before.